In this
juvenile delinquency case, the juvenile, H.J., [1] appeals his
adjudication of delinquency for simple burglary. H.J. raises
three (3) assignments of error. Finding no merit in
H.J.'s first two assignments of errors, we affirm the
juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency. However, we
find merit in H.J.'s third assignment of error and remand
with instructions.

STATEMENT
OF THE CASE

On
April 21, 2016, the State charged H.J. by delinquency
petition with simple burglary, a violation of La. R.S.
14:62.[2] In its petition, the State alleged that on
March 21, 2016, at approximately 10:24 p.m., H.J. entered a
vehicle, a Toyota 4Runner, owned by Charles Hurme
("Hurme") without authorization and with the intent
to commit a felony or a theft therein.[3] On May 26, 2016,
H.J. entered a denial to the delinquency petition. On October
21, 2016, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss petition
for failure to timely prosecute, which the juvenile court
denied. Thereafter, defense counsel sought appellate review
of the juvenile court's denial of its motion. This Court
found no abuse of the juvenile court's discretion and
denied defense counsel's writ.[4] H.J.'s adjudication
hearing was held on December 15, 2016. At the conclusion of
this hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated H.J. delinquent.

On May
11, 2017, the juvenile court committed H.J. to the custody of
The Department of Public Safety and Corrections for a period
not to exceed six (6) months. This sentence is to run
concurrent with a three (3) year sentence imposed in
Jefferson Parish for carjacking.[5] The juvenile court credited
H.J. for time served. It is from this adjudication of
delinquency that H.J. appeals and raises three (3)
assignments of error.

STATEMENT
OF THE FACTS

At the
adjudication hearing, Hurme testified that upon entering his
vehicle, a black 2008 4Runner, which had been parked near
3840 Bienville Street in New Orleans, he noticed that the
vehicle's door was ajar and that his vehicle had been
burglarized. According to Hurme, the burglary occurred on
March 21, 2016. Missing from his vehicle were a business book
that contained checks, fifteen hundred dollars ($1, 500.00)
in cash that was stored in the vehicle's console, and
other small items such as an auxiliary cord. Hurme stated
that he went to work in Gentilly and then called the New
Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") to report the
burglary. However, NOPD never arrived at Hurme's Gentilly
location. Hurme further testified that once he returned home
that evening, he again contacted NOPD; this time, NOPD did
report to Hurme's location. Hurme stated that he did not
see the burglary occur. Hurme provided a written statement
and video surveillance footage ("the footage") from
his home to NOPD. The footage showed the area near
Hurme's home where his vehicle was parked when the
burglary occurred. Hurme stated that although a person's
face can be seen on the footage, it is difficult to
distinguish a person's facial features. Hurme testified
that he was unable to identify anyone from the footage. When
questioned by defense counsel, Hurme was not able to say
whether H.J. was the person he observed on the footage.

At the
adjudication hearing, Shariffe Davis ("Det.
Davis"), a detective assigned to NOPD's First
District, testified that, at the request of Burglary
Detective John Mitchell, he spoke with Hurme and retrieved
the footage from Hurme's home. Once Det. Davis received
the footage, he returned to the station and inserted the jump
drive into the computer to ensure that the footage would
play. Det. Davis testified that in doing so he observed an
individual with whom he was familiar. Det. Davis explained
that on the day prior to the burglary, he investigated an
unrelated armed robbery, and located the subject who fit the
description of the perpetrator of the armed robbery along
with H.J.[6] Although H.J. was not connected to the
armed robbery, Det. Davis learned H.J.'s name. With this
interaction "fresh in [his] mind, " Det. Davis knew
that the person in the footage was H.J. According to Det.
Davis, he remembered H.J.'s face and height. After
viewing the footage and identifying H.J., Det. Davis
requested the task force unit's assistance in locating
H.J. Det. Davis testified that upon arriving at H.J.'s
last known address on Oak Street, he and Officer
Vastola[7] knocked on the door; Det. Davis observed
H.J. run down the alley. The task force officers pursued and
stopped H.J. near the Lafitte Housing Development; H.J.
identified himself and was taken into custody.

Det.
Davis testified that he met with H.J.'s guardian,
L.P.[8]
at juvenile detention. According to Det. Davis, H.J. was
released at some point and he, L.P., and H.J. went to the
NOPD First District station where Det. Davis showed the
footage and identified H.J. According to Det. Davis, H.J.
said "[t]hat ain't me. I don't have that
jacket." Det. Davis further testified that L.P.
responded "you don't have that jacket, but I'm
looking at your face on the screen." Det. Davis stated
that H.J. continued to deny that it was him on the footage.
At that point, Det. Davis terminated the interview. When
questioned, Det. Davis asserted that L.P. recognized H.J. in
the surveillance video. According to Det. Davis, the hat and
earrings that H.J. were wearing on that day were taken into
evidence because those items were identifiable on the larger
screen on which the footage was shown. With L.P.'s
consent, NOPD officers searched H.J.'s bedroom
exclusively for property connected with the burglary of
Hurme's vehicle; however, no evidence was recovered. On
cross examination, Det. Davis testified that he could see
H.J.'s face on the footage because he had watched the
footage on a screen larger than the screen in court; Det.
Davis asserted that he was able see H.J.'s features
clearly on the screen in court, but that "they could be
large, larger."

When
questioned at the hearing, L.P. testified that, upon viewing
the footage, he asked H.J. whether that was him on the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.